|
|
Reader Survey
What's your opinion on stream access?Write a commentIn the West, private landowners often provide much of the natural resource management at their own expense, which in turn benefits the public with healthy fisheries and prolific game. Recent fishing seasons in Montana as well as other western states have been tainted by conflicts between anglers and private land owners. Sports men and women want to access water and wildlife on private land, while the the land owners want to protect their private property rights. Without the ability to protect what is on their land, some would argue they have little incentive to continue to husband the resources. As the authors in PERC Reports' special spring issue suggest, now is the time to recognize the rights of both sides of the spectrum, leave emotions and biases aside, and focus on improving resource management incentives across the West. What is your opinion on access rights to water and wildlife on private land? Please submit your comments in the space below and see what others say when we publish some of the comments in the summer issue of PERC Reports.
|
|
E-mail
Print
Comments
chris corbin - 24 March 2009 08:49- mixed stream access
- I’m torn. Some of my fondest Montana memories come from days of fly-fishing publicly accessed streams. In contrast, I’ve also conducted redd counts on one of the state’s most highly contested “stream access” streams and witnessed first- hand the natural resource benefits of privatization. Personally, I would like to see a mix between public and private access based on the size of the stream and an ecological ranking system. For example, privatizing access to high ranking spawning tributaries and leaving the larger, more resilient, rivers open to the public. Thus, creating incentives from both public and private parties to effectively manage the resource.
Rick Craiger - 20 March 2009 15:01- Owning the rivers
- The underlying premise of several of your articles is that rivers can be privately owned. Awfully conceded of man to think he can own a river. So much of life depends on rivers, if I could own one, I’m not sure I’d want the responsibility. Just like a river, we’re all just passing by. Best we focus on being good stewards of the uplands and leave the rivers to do what they do best.
Michael Lyons - 18 March 2009 11:59- Utah stream access
- I just read Randy Simmons article on stream access in PERC Reports and liked his moderated tone. I think the flyfishing community in Utah is reasonably enlightened on the property rights perspective at this point, and there should be an opportunity to reach a compromise next year. I do think there should be public access to navigable streams wherever landownership is highly fragmented (as on the Blacksmith Fork), but not in situations like the one Simmons described. What bothers the angling community is the “waste” of potentially excellent habitat by ranchers or others who have no appreciation of the potential value of the resource they control, and no regard for the common pool dimensions of the resource. In our view, the market just doesn’t work (or work quickly enough) in too many of these cases. What I would like to see is a program of incentives to jump start the market and to encourage landowners to respect common pools. I could support supplemental license fees to subsidize private landowners who make habitat improvements so long as they are willing to sell access rights to anglers who pay the supplemental fees. Too often, private waters are accessible only to people who can pay thousands of dollars to join a club or spend a week on a plush (Lone Mountain) dude ranch. Private landowners do a good job of meeting angling demand at the ultra high end of the market, but there is very little available for the other 95% of us.
April Smith - 4 March 2009 13:52- a ballooning of stream access
- It’s sad that in 25 years of conflict over stream access in Montana, no one has been able to carve out a satisfactory solution. The latest resolution gives anglers the right to access rivers at county bridges because they’re descending on public land and provides landowners with a right they don’t currently have – to attach fences to county bridge abutments. I wonder if this will lead to a ballooning of stream access until counties and landowners are obligated to construct parking lots and wheelchair and boat ramps at every bridge in Montana.
Bob Garnett - 2 March 2009 12:33- stream access
- If you develop a fishery on a stream that runs through your property, you should be able to proect that investment and not be obligated to open your property to the public. Otherwise, what good is a private property right if the governemnt can tell you who can come on your property?
Andy Dayton - 26 February 2009 15:46- stream access
- Just compromise. Let property owners fence their property and even attach fences to public bridges to confine livestock. Also, require them to provide access to fishermen through gates or other means. If the public degrades the fishery, then few people wiill be seeking access and the private property owners can have the stream all to themselves. If the public does not impact the fishery, then the wealth of a public resource should be shared by all.
Add new comment: